| Literature DB >> 22905123 |
Raúl Abel Vaca1, Duncan John Golicher, Luis Cayuela, Jenny Hewson, Marc Steininger.
Abstract
Case studies of land use change have suggested that deforestation across Southern Mexico is accelerating. However, forest transition theory predicts that trajectories of change can be modified by economic factors, leading to spatial and temporal heterogeneity in rates of change that may take the form of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). This study aimed to assess the evidence regarding potential forest transition in Southern Mexico by classifying regional forest cover change using Landsat imagery from 1990 through to 2006. Patterns of forest cover change were found to be complex and non-linear. When rates of forest loss were averaged over 342 municipalities using mixed-effects modelling the results showed a significant (p<0.001) overall reduction of the mean rate of forest loss from 0.85% per year in the 1990-2000 period to 0.67% in the 2000-2006 period. The overall regional annual rate of deforestation has fallen from 0.33% to 0.28% from the 1990s to 2000s. A high proportion of the spatial variability in forest cover change cannot be explained statistically. However analysis using spline based general additive models detected underlying relationships between forest cover and income or population density of a form consistent with the EKC. The incipient forest transition has not, as yet, resulted in widespread reforestation. Forest recovery remains below 0.20% per year. Reforestation is mostly the result of passive processes associated with reductions in the intensity of land use. Deforestation continues to occur at high rates in some focal areas. A transition could be accelerated if there were a broader recognition among policy makers that the regional rate of forest loss has now begun to fall. The changing trajectory provides an opportunity to actively restore forest cover through stimulating afforestation and stimulating more sustainable land use practices. The results have clear implications for policy aimed at carbon sequestration through reducing deforestation and enhancing forest growth.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22905123 PMCID: PMC3414527 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042309
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Study area.
A) Ecological regions of Southern Mexico as proposed by Olson et al. [37]: gray areas consist in areas excluded from analysis. B) Large forest reserves.
Confusion matrices and estimated Kappa for forest classes and forest loss.
| Reference data | |||||||||
| Classified data | TDF | TMF | POF | MCF | FL | NF | Total | Error of Commission (%) | Estimated Kappa |
| TDF | 2488 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 297 | 2804 | 11.27 | 0.86 |
| TMF | 0 | 2644 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 177 | 2821 | 6.27 | 0.92 |
| POF | 0 | 0 | 695 | 0 | 4 | 87 | 786 | 11.58 | 0.88 |
| MCF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 549 | 0 | 30 | 579 | 5.18 | 0.95 |
| FL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 272 | 0 | 272 | 0 | 1 |
| NF | 127 | 179 | 122 | 63 | 0 | 6434 | 6925 | 7.09 | 0.86 |
| Total | 2615 | 2823 | 817 | 612 | 295 | 7025 | 14187 | ||
| Error of Omission (%) | 4.86 | 6.34 | 14.93 | 10.29 | 7.79 | 8.41 | |||
Abbreviations for forest classes and forest loss: Tropical dry forest ecoregions (TDF); tropical moist forest ecoregions (TMF); pine-oak forest ecoregions (POF); montane cloud forest ecoregions (MCF); forest loss (FL); no-forest (NF).
Figure 2Cover change classification and deforestation hotspots in Southern Mexico.
Hotspots were identified where more than 10% of the total municipal land area was losing forest cover during the entire study period (see Figure 3). A) Lacandon forest hotspot; B) Northern Chimalapas hotspot; and C) Benito Juárez-Isla Mujeres hotspot.
Figure 3Net cover change between 1990 and 2006 calculated as a percentage of total land area in each municipality.
Deforestation hotspots (depicted in red) were identified based on municipalities with more than 10% of the total land area that had changed from forest to non forest during this period.
Single point estimates of change in forest area for each time period by state and overall Southern Mexican region.
| State name | Area (ha) | Forest cover area in ha (% forest cover area) | Total forest loss in ha(% annual rate) | Total net change in ha(% annual rate) | ||||
| 1990 | 2000 | 2006 | 1990–2000 | 2000–2006 | 1990–2000 | 2000–2006 | ||
| Tabasco | 2,293,546 | 320,872 (14.0) | 340,231 (14.8) | 322,668 (14.1) | −52,257 (−1.76) | −17,572 (−0.88) | 19,360 (0.59) | −17,563 (−0.88) |
| Veracruz | 2,146,550 | 439,563 (20.5) | 337,373 (15.7) | 327,032 (15.2) | −108,796 (−2.80) | −10,975 (−0.55) | −102,191 (−2.61) | −10.341 (−0.52) |
| Chiapas | 7,187,712 | 3,702,056 (51.5) | 3,620,110 (50.4) | 3,579,399 (49.8) | −135,711 (−0.37) | −40,727 (−0.19) | −81,946 (−0.22) | −40,711 (−0.19) |
| Yucatán | 3,725,287 | 1,348,997 (36.2) | 1,340,390 (36.0) | 1,306,575 (35.1) | −98,472 (−0.76) | −38,328 (−0.48) | −8607 (−0.06) | −33,814 (−0.42) |
| Quintana Roo | 4,675,433 | 3,321,905 (71.0) | 3,190,321 (68.2) | 3,137,660 (67.1) | −156,640 (−0.48) | −75,793 (−0.40) | −131,584 (−0.40) | −52,661 (−0.28) |
| Oaxaca | 2,537,552 | 1,746,372 (68.8) | 1,713,246 (67.5) | 1,697,387 (66.9) | −33,312 (−0.19) | −15,864 (−0.15) | −33,126 (−0.19) | −15,859 (−0.15) |
| Campeche | 4,984,545 | 2,983,837 (59.9) | 2,874,919 (57.7) | 2,819,381 (56.6) | −122,285 (−0.42) | −60,067 (−0.35) | −108,918 (−0.37) | −55,538 (−0.32) |
| Overall region | 27,550,626 | 13,863,602 (50.3) | 13,416,590 (48.7) | 13,190,102 (47.9) | −707,474 (−0.52) | −259,327 (−0.32) | −447,013 (−0.33) | −226,488 (−0.28) |
Single point estimates of change by ecoregion in Southern Mexico.
| Ecoregion | Area (ha) | Forest cover area in ha (% forest cover area) | Total forest loss in ha(% annual rate) | Total net change in ha(% annual rate) | ||||
| 1990 | 2000 | 2006 | 1990–2000 | 2000–2006 | 1990–2000 | 2000–2006 | ||
| CADF | 321,806 | 24,713 (7.7) | 34,276 (10.6) | 32,171 (10.0) | −3030 (−1.30) | −2105 (−1.05) | 9563 (3.33) | −2105 (−1.05) |
| CHDDF | 1,247,565 | 419,208 (33.6) | 412,812 (33.1) | 411,401 (33.0) | −6447 (−0.15) | −1411 (−0.06) | −6396 (−0.15) | −1411 (−0.06) |
| YDF | 4,905,012 | 2,081,671 (42.4) | 2,060,732 (42.0) | 2,024,533 (41.3) | −125,037 (−0.62) | −45,229 (−0.37) | −20,939 (−0.10) | −36,199 (−0.29) |
| All tropical dry | 6,474,383 | 2,525,592 (39.0) | 2,507,821 (38.7) | 2,468,105 (38.1) | −134,513 (−0.55) | −48,745 (−0.33) | −17,772 (−0.07) | −39,715 (−0.27) |
| PVMF | 6,619,008 | 2,790,410 (42.2) | 2,598,606 (39.3) | 2,535,676 (38.3) | −278,131 (−1.04) | −63,308 (−0.41) | −191,804 (−0.71) | −62,930 (−0.41) |
| ST | 375,913 | 60,077 (16.0) | 55,733 (14.8) | 55,759 (14.8) | −5696 (−0.99) | −308 (−0.09) | −4344 (−0.75) | 26 (0.01) |
| YMF | 6,705,716 | 4,831,974 (72.1) | 4,648,895 (69.3) | 4,555,664 (67.9) | −204,554 (−0.43) | −115,923 (−0.42) | −183,079 (−0.39) | −93,231 (−0.34) |
| All tropical moist | 13,700,637 | 7,682,462 (56.1) | 7,303,234 (53.3) | 7,147,098 (52.2) | −488,382 (−0.65) | −179,539 (−0.41) | −379,228 (−0.50) | −156,136 (−0.36) |
| SMMF | 538,955 | 386,146 (71.6) | 381,129 (70.7) | 379,494 (70.4) | −8495 (−0.22) | −1635 (−0.07) | −5017 (−0.13) | −1635 (−0.07) |
| POF | 1,590,606 | 933,379 (58.7) | 918,788 (57.8) | 916,279 (57.6) | −15,037 (−0.16) | −2508 (−0.05) | −14,591 (−0.16) | −2508 (−0.05) |
| CHMF | 556,316 | 381,061(68.5) | 375,553 (67.5) | 375,220 (67.4) | −6104 (−0.16) | −333 (−0.01) | −5508 (−0.15) | −333 (−0.01) |
| CMF | 206,652 | 157,248 (76.1) | 156,676 (75.8) | 156,511 (75.7) | −604 (−0.04) | −165 (−0.02) | −572 (−0.04) | −165 (−0.02) |
| Mountain ecoregion | 2,892,530 | 1,857,834 (64.2) | 1,832,146 (63.3) | 1,827,504 (63.2) | −30,240 (−0.16) | −4642 (−0.04) | −25,689 (−0.14) | −4642 (−0.04) |
Abbreviations for ecoregions: Central American Dry Forest (CADF); Chiapas Depression Dry Forest (CHDDF); Yucatan Dry Forest (YDF); Petén-Veracruz Moist Forest (PVMF); Sierra de Los Tuxtlas (ST); Yucatán Moist Forest (YMF); Sierra Madre de Chiapas Moist Forest (SMMF); Central American Pine-Oak Forest (POF); Chiapas Montane Forest (CHMF); Chimalapas Montane Forest (CMF).
Single point estimates of change by large forest reserves in Southern Mexico.
| Reserve name | Area (ha) | Ecoregion | Forest cover area in ha (% forest cover area) | Total forest loss in ha (% annual rate) | Total net change in ha (% annual rate) | ||||
| 1990 | 2000 | 2006 | 1990–2000 | 2000–2006 | 1990–2000 | 2000–2006 | |||
| Cañón Sumidero | 19.501 | CHDDF | 10,668 (54.7) | 10,594 (54.3) | 10,593 (54.3) | −74 (−0.07) | −1 (−0.00) | −74 (−0.07) | −1 (−0.00) |
| Calakmul | 723,591 | YMF | 663,626 (91.7) | 660,592 (91.3) | 660,318 (91.3) | −3118 (−0.05) | −275 (−0.01) | −3034 (−0.05) | −275 (−0.01) |
| Balan Kaax | 128,789 | YMF | 117,017 (90.9) | 116,506 (90.5) | 116,262 (90.3) | −850 (−0.07) | −256 (−0.04) | −512 (−0.04) | −244 (−0.03) |
| Sian Kaan | 286,735 | YMF | 149,095 (52.0) | 149,049 (52.0) | 148,959 (52.0) | −315 (−0.02) | −191 (−0.02) | −46 (−0.00) | −90 (−0.01) |
| Los Tuxtlas | 153,920 | ST | 49,508 (32.2) | 46,165 (30.0) | 46,469 (30.2) | −4441 (−0.94) | −26 (−0.01) | −3343 (−0.70) | 303 (0.11) |
| Montes Azules | 323,280 | PVMF | 303,163 (93.8) | 298,520 (92.3) | 297,162 (91.9) | −4743 (−0.16) | −1357 (−0.08) | −4643 (−0.15) | −1357 (−0.08) |
| Lacan-tun | 61,822 | PVMF | 60,459 (97.8) | 60,080 (97.2) | 59,964 (97.0) | −381 (−0.06) | −115 (−0.03) | −380 (−0.06) | −115 (−0.03) |
| Chan-kin | 12,178 | PVMF | 12,071 (99.1) | 12,005 (98.6) | 12,005 (98.6) | −66 (−0.05) | −1 (−0.00) | −66 (−0.05) | −1 (−0.00) |
| Selva El Ocote | 101,007 | PVMF | 69,780 (69.1) | 67,903 (67.2) | 67,824 (67.1) | −1877 (−0.27) | −79 (−0.02) | −1877 (−0.27) | −79 (−0.02) |
| La Sepultura | 166,281 | POF | 114,952 (69.1) | 113,510 (68.3) | 112,552 (67.7) | −1445 (−0.13) | −974 (−0.14) | −1442 (−0.13) | −958 (−0.14) |
| El Triunfo | 118,236 | SMMF | 94,159 (79.6) | 92,271 (78.0) | 92,040 (77.8) | −1940 (−0.21) | −231 (−0.04) | −1888 (−0.20) | −231 (−0.04) |
| La Frailescana | 154,126 | POF-SMMF | 117,826 (76.4) | 115,808 (75.1) | 114,780 (74.5) | −2322 (−0.20) | −1028 (−0.15) | −2018 (−0.17) | −1028 (−0.15) |
| Mozotal-Tacana | 199,350 | SMMF-POF | 141,372 (70.9) | 139,579 (70.0) | 139,437 (69.9) | −2329 (−0.17) | −142 (−0.02) | −1792 (−0.13) | −142 (−0.02) |
| Pico Loro Paxtal | 60,891 | POF | 45,342 (74.5) | 44,718 (73.4) | 44,681 (73.4) | −623 (−0.14) | −37 (−0.01) | −623 (−0.14) | −37 (−0.01) |
Chiapas Depression Dry Forest (CHDDF); Petén-Veracruz Moist Forest (PVMF); Sierra de Los Tuxtlas (ST); Yucatán Moist Forest (YMF); Sierra Madre de Chiapas Moist Forest (SMMF); Central American Pine-Oak Forest (POF); Chiapas Montane Forest (CHMF).
National Park;
Biosphere Reserve;
Area for Protection of Flora and Fauna;
Area for Protection of Natural Resources;
State Reserve.
Results from linear mixed-effects models on rate of forest loss.
| A | |||||
| Fixed effects: rate of forest loss ∼ mean elevation + time + income per capita + population density(AIC value = 2200) | |||||
| Value | Std. Error | DF | t-value | p-value | |
| Intercept | 1.0807 | 0.1539 | 340 | 7.0184 | 0.0000 |
| Mean elevation | −0.0006 | 0.0001 | 340 | −6.3430 | 0.0000 |
| Time | −0.3240 | 0.0974 | 323 | −3.3253 | 0.0010 |
| Income per capita | 0.0001 | 0.0000 | 323 | 2.9992 | 0.0029 |
| Population density | 0.0011 | 0.0005 | 323 | 2.3181 | 0.0211 |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Intercept | 1.2199 | 0.1482 | 340 | 8.2297 | 0.0000 |
| Mean elevation | −0.0008 | 0.0001 | 340 | −7.8899 | 0.0000 |
| Time | −0.1833 | 0.0865 | 324 | −2.1191 | 0.0348 |
| Population density | 0.0017 | 0.0005 | 324 | 3.6614 | 0.0003 |
A) Fixed effects including all the variables. B) Fixed effects excluding income per capita. According to AIC values, the random intercept model was the optimal structure of the random component.
Results from linear mixed-effects models on rate of forest gain.
| Fixed effects: rate of forest gain ∼ time(AIC value = 1911) | |||||
| Value | Std. Error | DF | t-value | p-value | |
| Intercept | 1.1289 | 0.1174 | 341 | 9.6162 | 0.0000 |
| Time | −0.5432 | 0.0742 | 341 | −7.3208 | 0.0000 |
According to AIC values, the random intercept model was the optimal structure of the random component.
Figure 4Beta GAM modelling on the relationship between the proportion of remaining forest cover at the municipality level and socio-economic factors.
A) Relationship between the proportion of forest cover remaining in 2000 and income per capita in 2000 (Deviance explained = 14.5%); B) Relationship between the proportion of forest cover remaining in 2006 and income per capita in 2005 (Deviance explained = 11.9%); C) Relationship between the proportion of forest cover remaining in 1990 and population density in 1990 (Deviance explained = 22.0%); and D) Relationship between the proportion of forest cover remaining in 2006 and population density in 2005 (Deviance explained = 12.8%). The bootstrapped cases and the fitted models with all the data are shown in grey and red lines, respectively. Figure 4a and 4b provide support for Kuznets’ hypothesis. Although the scatter around the trend is substantial leading to a small amount of explained deviance (<15%) the underlying relationships are a close match to that followed by an EKC. Economic development has been comparatively rapid in the region between 2000 and 2005 with approximately 5% growth in per capita income annually, leading to a change in spread along the abscissa. The figures show the highly skewed nature of income distribution, with a few municipalities that rely largely on tourism for income having per capita incomes over US$ 10,000 while most rural communities lie below US$ 5000 in both time periods. Figures 4c and 4d also display the same intrinsic variability. The model of the underlying trend shows a decline in forest cover in rural areas as population density increases up to a threshold of 100 people per km2. The trend is approximately linear on a log scale, so the gradient decreases along this part of the trajectory when the curve is plotted on a linear scale. The loss in cover slows and is ultimately reversed, even on a log scale, at a population density of around 100 persons per km2. Forest cover may decrease once again at levels of population density that are typical of densely urbanised areas, followed by an increase in the largest, long established cities (perhaps as parks and gardens are established). There are very few data points available to provide support for this part of the curve, so the bootstrapped curves take varying forms beyond the 100 person per km2 cutoff level. The shape of the right hand side of the curve is thus not established through these data.